The Leveson Inquiry: Crone, Myler and Sanderson give evidence

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Maybe the McCanns will sue Clarence Mitchell next?

Not a hell of a chance unless they are suicidal.

gerry praised him to high heaven at the LI remember? Because of CM they got some respite according to gerry that creepy man.

candyfloss wrote:17.30 Clarence Mitchell has responded to the claim he approved the publiciation of the Kate McCann diary. He is very angry: he claims his contact with Edmondson was limited to one phone call and one text on the Friday and Saturday of publication. The text was "along the lines" of News of the World wanting to expose the lies of the Portuguese police (according to Channel 4's Andy Davies). Mitchell claims at no point did Edmondson spell out that the News of the World had Kate McCann's diary



Another interesting day tomorrow..........


Also giving evidence tomorrow are Daniel Sanderson, the former NOTW journalist whose name appeared on the Kate McCann diaries story; and Derek Webb, the private investigator hired as a 'freelance journalist'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8934976/Leveson-Inquiry-live.html

HO HO HO CM didnt like his early christmas present!

Me wrote:Clearly now, the issue is not where the diary came from, it's whether once it became apparent that the NOTW had it did the Mccann's and/or Mitchell approve it for publication.

Crone & Myler say they were aware of it, Jay the QC said he had doucments broadly supporting that. Leverson seemed to think there was some ambiguity in a document but i'm not sure if he was referring to the same document Jay was or a different one.

So it seems the only conclusion is either Edmondson didn't tell Myler the truth or Mitchell isn't telling the truth.

What would be interesting to know is where did Crone get his view from. Did Edmondson tell him directly or did Myler tell Crone after being told by Edmondson?

Seems like it's a straight bitch fight between Edmondson and Mitchell on this one.

**update - And Mitchell's got his retaliation in first by the looks of things. He didn't waste any time did he! **

kate said she was told by CM NOTW was going to do a positive piece about them that weekend, so CM did tell kate is my take.
Can anyone imagine CM being expert in controlling what comes out of the media not asked beforehand what NOTW were going to publish before he convey that to kate? And it's ridiculous to even to think that when he told kate about NOTW intention to run story to counter negative coming out of Portugal at that time that kate didnt think to ask what story? Where would NOTW get any 'portray kate in good lights' story to run if it was not given and approved by team mccanns?

NOtW can't pluck story out of thin air just for the sake of countering Portugal lie's (as they termed it). CM and Kate would have us believed they were stupid for not asking but isn't their whole point of controlling what comes out of the media by providing media with headlines.

What is apparent here is the mccanns were handled with kid-gloves by NOTW.

Looking at it from Edmondson’s point of view what would be the point of ringing and texting Clarence if he wasn’t prepared to tell him what they were going to print?

If he wasn’t prepared to tell Clarence what they’d got then why ring him in the first place?

If he wasn’t going to tell him he wouldn’t have rung him and just printed anyway.

What he wouldn’t have done is ring him if he wasn’t prepared to tell him because he must have known Clarence would have asked him what exactly he was going to print.

The denial just doesn’t make any sense either from Clarence’s point of view in receiving the call or Edmondson’s in making it.

I'm surprised the Daily Mail are allowing comments, should be interesting to see what views get printed.

Madeleine McCann representative 'gave NOTW permission to publish Kate's diaries' claims lawyer, contradicting Kate's claims
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074117/News-Worlds-ex-legal-manager-insists-showed-James-Murdoch-evidence-phone-hacking-2008.html#ixzz1gXrNP0Pt

Hope this gets splashed big time in the hard copies as it impacts on a wider audience.

Online version just does not have the same impact. Nothing like holding physical copy with captivating headlines!

Daisy wrote:I'm surprised the Daily Mail are allowing comments, should be interesting to see what views get printed.

Madeleine McCann representative 'gave NOTW permission to publish Kate's diaries' claims lawyer, contradicting Kate's claims
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074117/News-Worlds-ex-legal-manager-insists-showed-James-Murdoch-evidence-phone-hacking-2008.html#ixzz1gXrNP0Pt

Thanks Daisy.

This is in the headline of the article...

Madeleine McCann representative 'gave NOTW permission to publish Kate's diaries' claims lawyer, contradicting Kate's claims

[snipped]
Mr Crone also said he understood a representative of Madeleine McCann’s family gave the News of the World permission to publish the personal diary of the missing girl’s mother.
Kate McCann told the inquiry last month that she felt 'violated' and like 'climbing into a hole and not coming out' when the intensely private journal appeared in the paper on September 14, 2008.
Mr Crone said today: 'My understanding was that the representative of the McCanns had given the OK, the permission to the head of the newsdesk at the News of the World, to run the diaries or extracts from the diaries. I think he had emails to support that.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074117/News-Worlds-ex-legal-manager-insists-showed-James-Murdoch-evidence-phone-hacking-2008.html#ixzz1gXz2jeXY




In the article it mentions again the McCanns "representative" but nowhere does it mention Clarence Mitchell by name, and yet his name was used several times in the evidence given this afternoon.

In all of this, it is worth remembering that in his post as Director of the Media Monitoring Unit in the Central Office of Information, and reporting direct to the Cabinet Office - and via that office direct to Prime Minister Tony Blair, Clarence Mitchell's job, as he boasted to the Spanish newspaper Espresso, was 'to control what comes out in the media'.

In that capacity he would have had the closest possible relationship with Britain's main media, and I venture to suggest a 'controlling' relationship over them, so far as that was humanly possible.

And with the Sun being Britain's best-read and arguably most influential newspaper by a country mile, and the NOTW being far and away the biggest seller on Sundays, his relationship with these two Rupert Murdoch titles would have been exceptionally close. I wonder if we shall ever be able to see that 4-page transcript of the Edmondson-Mitchell conversation. Will Lord Leveson publish it?

Finally, after working full-time for the McCanns for 16 months, on government orders, where did Mitchell land his next job?

Working as a top PR man for Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, Matthew Freud, at Freud Communications.

And who ended up working as No. 2 to former NOTW Editor Andy Coulson for Britain's next Prime Minister, David Cameron?

That man Mitchell, there again, in the right place, at the right time.











t

Colin Myler: I did not berate the McCanns over Hello story

15 December 2011

By Andrew Pugh

Former News of the World editor Colin Myler yesterday claimed he would not have published excerpts from Kate McCann’s diary without permission – but was told by his news editor Ian Edmondson that the family’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell had given them the go-ahead.

The claim has since beeny denied by Mitchell.

At the Leveson Inquiry last month Kate McCann said she felt “mentally raped” after the NoW published transcripts from her personal diary on 14 September 2008 under the headline “Kate’s Diary: In her own words”, and said it was done without prior notice.

The McCanns claimed that before the article was published Edmondson told Mitchell they were writing a “positive piece” but did not mention the diary, and if they had known they would have considered taking legal action to prevent publication.

Also speaking to the Leveson Inquiry, Gerry McCann said that Myler had "berated" him in an "angry" phone call because the McCanns gave an exclusive story to Hello magazine - rather than the News of the World.

Yesterday Myler revealed the diaries came from a female Portuguese journalist.

He insisted that Edmondson told him he had cleared the story with Mitchell, telling the inquiry: "Ian Edmondson had assured me on more than one occasion that Clarence was aware of what we were intending to do and had said, 'good'.


"I think it was very clear from Mr Edmondson's point of view how he had spelt out what he was doing."

On the subject of the "angry" phone call too Gerry McCann, Myler said: "I don't have a reputation for berating people." He added that he "simply pointed out" his "surprise" that they took their story to Hello with a circulation, he said, of around 300,000 compared with the News of the World's three million plus sale.

Responding to the diary claims, Mitchell said: "At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.

"I told him that we were in no way encouraging any such coverage of a diary, or even confirming that any diary existed.

"However, I said if they were planning to run a positive piece that was up to them and it would be fine as long as it was positive.

"All of my contemporaneous emails at the time are now with lawyers for the Leveson Inquiry, and I am more than happy to give my side of the conversation with Ian Edmondson if required.

"You only need to look at the fact that the News of the World subsequently rolled over a few days later and not only published an apology in the following week's paper but also paid more than £120,000 to the Madeleine Fund by way of compensation. That speaks for itself."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48450&c=1

Headline in todays Daily Mail (comments accepted)

Why I published Kate's diary: NotW's ex-editor thought he had
mother's permission to print entries that left McCanns mentally raped

Colin Myler claims family's press spokesman had given the go ahead
By
Rebecca Camber

Last updated at 9:06 AM on 15th December 2011



Vanished: Madeleine McCann disappeared from Praia da Luz in Portugal in 2007


The News of the World’s former editor
said yesterday he believed he had permission to publish the extracts
from Kate McCann’s diary that she later said had left her feeling
‘mentally raped’.

Colin
Myler said he was told he had full support for publishing a story from
Clarence Mitchell, the press spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann, whose
daughter Madeleine disappeared from Praia da Luz, in Portugal, in 2007.

Mr
Myler told the Leveson press standards inquiry he had ‘nothing to gain
and everything to lose’ from upsetting the couple, having developed a
good relationship with them.

Mr
Myler, who edited the News of the World from 2007 until it closed this
year, said: ‘I stressed that I did not want Kate to come out of church
on Sunday morning and find that the diaries were there without her
knowledge.’

Mrs McCann’s diary was published in the News of the World on September 14, 2008.
She told the inquiry last month that
when she saw it published she felt ‘violated’. Her husband said: ‘Kate
was distraught and in her words felt “mentally raped”.’

The
McCanns said Mr Mitchell was told by the paper’s Head of News Ian
Edmondson that it was planning to run a ‘supportive story’ but not that
it would publish the diary.




'Everything to lose': Former News of the World
Editor Colin Myler claims he had been told the McCann's press spokesman
was aware of the
article

Mr Edmondson, who
has since been arrested as part of the phone-hacking inquiry, told Mr
Myler the diary was obtained from a Portuguese journalist.

Asked
why he did not phone Mr McCann to check if permission had been given,
Mr Myler said: ‘Because Ian Edmondson had assured me on more than one
occasion that Clarence [Mitchell] was aware of what we were intending to
do.’

After the diary was printed, Mr Myler ran an apology in the paper ‘because I felt very bad that she didn’t know’, he said.

Speaking
after yesterday’s hearing, Mr Mitchell said: ‘At no point in the one
brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening
before publication did he spell out categorically that they had
purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the
Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a
way as they subsequently did.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074346/News-World-ex-editor-Colin-Myler-Why-I-published-Kate-McCanns-diary.html#ixzz1gbKo0DOw

Spot the difference:

First Statement:

17.30 Clarence Mitchell has responded to the claim he approved the publiciation of the Kate McCann diary. He is very angry: he claims his contact with Edmondson was limited to one phone call and one text on the Friday and Saturday of publication. The text was "along the lines" of News of the World wanting to expose the lies of the Portuguese police (according to Channel 4's Andy Davies). Mitchell claims at no point did Edmondson spell out that the News of the World had Kate McCann's diary

Second Statement:

Responding to the diary claims, Mitchell said: "At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.

"I told him that we were in no way encouraging any such coverage of a diary, or even confirming that any diary existed.

"However, I said if they were planning to run a positive piece that was up to them and it would be fine as long as it was positive.

"All of my contemporaneous emails at the time are now with lawyers for the Leveson Inquiry, and I am more than happy to give my side of the conversation with Ian Edmondson if required.

So in the first statment he claims he was not told there was a diary at all. In the second he claims he was told there was “an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.”

So which is it? Diary or no diary?

Also note the language used in this statement:

"At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did."

Now there are two ways to interpret this line but to follow that train of thought we need to break his words down into two seperate pieces of information.

The first piece is that he didn’t know they had bought Kate’s diary and the second is that he didn’t know they were planning to go big on it.

The first interpretation, as Clarence wants you to believe, is that Edmondson did not spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked AND that he wasn’t aware that they were going to publish it in such a big way.

Clarence wants you to believe that he categorically denied knowing about both pieces of information.

However his words are open to a second more plausible interpretation, given what else he has said. Truncate the two pieces of information into one piece of information with the emphasis solely being on NOTW planning to publish it in such a big way and his denial is markedly different.

So he could be saying that they categorically told him they had no plans to publish in such a big way the dairy they had bought. This means that he may well have been aware of the diary being bought but he categorically did not know they were planning to publish it in such a big way only.

Note the difference? He was categorically denying he knew they planned to go “big” with it, not that they had it. He was denying only one piece of the information contained within his statement and not both.

I would argue this second meaning makes more sense because how can he deny on the one hand that he didn’t know they had bought Kate’s diary but on the other claim he was aware the NOTW had bought a diary which had previously been leaked to the Portuguese press that they were planning to print?

Whose diary did he think it was? Who, other than Kate, had had their diary leaked to the press? Who, other than Kate, had written a diary worthy of printing ?

It doesn’t make sense for Clarence to deny knowing they had Kate’s diary whilst acknowledging he was aware they had a diary which had been leaked in Portugal, when all and sundry knew who that diary belonged to.

Weasel words once more.

He's either not telling the truth or telling us that he's incompetent.

Me wrote:Spot the difference:

First Statement:

17.30 Clarence Mitchell has responded to the claim he approved the publiciation of the Kate McCann diary. He is very angry: he claims his contact with Edmondson was limited to one phone call and one text on the Friday and Saturday of publication. The text was "along the lines" of News of the World wanting to expose the lies of the Portuguese police (according to Channel 4's Andy Davies). Mitchell claims at no point did Edmondson spell out that the News of the World had Kate McCann's diary

Second Statement:

Responding to the diary claims, Mitchell said: "At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.

"I told him that we were in no way encouraging any such coverage of a diary, or even confirming that any diary existed.

"However, I said if they were planning to run a positive piece that was up to them and it would be fine as long as it was positive.

"All of my contemporaneous emails at the time are now with lawyers for the Leveson Inquiry, and I am more than happy to give my side of the conversation with Ian Edmondson if required.

So in the first statment he claims he was not told there was a diary at all. In the second he claims he was told there was “an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.”

So which is it? Diary or no diary?

Also note the language used in this statement:

"At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did."

Now there are two ways to interpret this line but to follow that train of thought we need to break his words down into two seperate pieces of information.

The first piece is that he didn’t know they had bought Kate’s diary and the second is that he didn’t know they were planning to go big on it.

The first interpretation, as Clarence wants you to believe, is that Edmondson did not spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked AND that he wasn’t aware that they were going to publish it in such a big way.

Clarence wants you to believe that he categorically denied knowing about both pieces of information.

However his words are open to a second more plausible interpretation, given what else he has said. Truncate the two pieces of information into one piece of information with the emphasis solely being on NOTW planning to publish it in such a big way and his denial is markedly different.

So he could be saying that they categorically told him they had no plans to publish in such a big way the dairy they had bought. This means that he may well have been aware of the diary being bought but he categorically did not know they were planning to publish it in such a big way only.

Note the difference? He was categorically denying he knew they planned to go “big” with it, not that they had it. He was denying only one piece of the information contained within his statement and not both.

I would argue this second meaning makes more sense because how can he deny on the one hand that he didn’t know they had bought Kate’s diary but on the other claim he was aware the NOTW had bought a diary which had previously been leaked to the Portuguese press that they were planning to print?

Whose diary did he think it was? Who, other than Kate, had had their diary leaked to the press? Who, other than Kate, had written a diary worthy of printing ?

It doesn’t make sense for Clarence to deny knowing they had Kate’s diary whilst acknowledging he was aware they had a diary which had been leaked in Portugal, when all and sundry knew who that diary belonged to.

Weasel words once more.

He's either not telling the truth or telling us that he's incompetent.

Get him before the Judge.

From Sanderson at Leveson inquiry.....


12.29 Sanderson says he believed the McCann's agent would be asked to consent at the end of the week. He says if they did not give the green light - even after he had finished the story - it would not be published.


Jay asks how the story was changed by editors after Sanderson had sent it to Ian Edmondson.


Sanderson says his commentary was taken out, and they just published extracts from the diary with a short introduction on the front page.


Sanderson says in his statement he wishes to give a public apology to the McCanns, having seen how it made them feel.

I did feel very bad that my involvement in the story made Mrs McCann feel the way that it had. Why was it the wrong decision to publish? Because they didn't have the permission. They didn't have Mrs McCann's permission to publish.

Leveson says it was an "intensely personal document."

"As you read it for the first time did you think you had any business writing a word of it without making sure it was truly what they wanted?"

Sanderson said it wasn't in his "sphere of responsibility". He said Edmondson spoke to Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's spokesman, every day. He did not have Mitchell's phone number. The first time he spoke to Mitchell was three weeks ago, to say he would apologise. "That's not just for this inquiry. That's because I'm genuinely sorry," he says.

12.24 Sanderson says the diary had been translated from English to Portuguese. Thinking back, he says, it was obvious it had come from the Police - he thinks there were comments written on certain pages. "The whole thing caused me concern," he says, crestfallen. Did he share that with Edmondson?

"My thinking was this story was going to be published with the co-operation of the McCanns. We were translating the document, we were checking with the McCanns, that was my understanding throughout.

"Don't forget, I wasn't aware necessarily what the newspaper was planning to do with the document once it was in the NOTW offices."

Sanderson says he arranged for the document to be translated and he wrote up the story as it came through section-by-section. He checked the translation against internet sources to ensure it was not a fake - such as the family meeting the

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8934976/Leveson-Inquiry-live.html

Some of my notes taken down in a rush so may not be totally accurate but just to get the jist of what he was saying............

He was not aware at the time the sources was the Portuguese police

There would have been a conversation between NotW and McCanns tp publish diary, told this by Edmonson.

My understang was to obtain permission from McCanns

Difficult to speculate about provinence of diary

Already circulating around Portugal

Diary obviously translated from English to Portuguese

It must have come from PJ, looked like official document with notes on the side.

The whole thing caused me concern.

My thinking was this story was going to be published with the co-operation of the McCannns

Checking translation against internet sources. Cross referencing with news reports

Mr Edmonson was going to speak to Clarence Mitchell at the end of the week

Story not going to be published without "green light" from McCanns

Wrote story based on extracts

All of my pieces taken out and just extracts printed

Front page contained my introduction

I have every intention to apologise to the McCanns

Seeking permission wasn't my responsibility

I understand News Editor spoke to McCanns press secretary on a daily basis


Disclaimer
Above notes are my own and may be not exactly what was said.

Added video to this thread..



https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4014-video-leveson-inquiry-diary-colin-myler-dan-sanderson-updated

GuidoFawkesGuido Fawkes


Now confirmed that @PiersMorgan is up in front of the #Leveson Inquiry, here are some questions he should answer >> http://guyfawk.es/njv4I2

12 minutes

Thursday, 15 December 2011


Who's Lying to Leveson?...



Kate McCann's diary... modern day plague, capable of extreme violation and mental rape - but only in the English language it would seem. The diary entries previously made the front pages in Portugal, without so much as a whimper from the McCanns.


So where did the diary come from and who did or didn't give permission for its extracts to be printed in the News of the World. Despite the newspaper sitting on the story for some time, Mr and Mrs McCann and their spokesman deny all knowledge of it's then impending print. The main players at the News of the World maintain every authorisation was given to go to print, and that emails and transcribed phone calls exist giving permission.


The important job of tracking down, translating and forming a story on the diary was given to intrepid reporter Daniel Sanderson, in his own words... the most junior reporter on the paper. He was originally unaware of the ultimate source although when repeatedly pressed by Counsel, contradicted himself and said it could have come from the Portuguese police. He was reassured that the story would not run without the green light and express permission from the McCanns.


Former Legal Affairs Manager for News International, Tom Crone played some part in clearing it up afterwards, his understanding was that the representative of the McCanns had given permission to the head of the news desk to run the diaries. Mr Crone claims there are supporting emails.


Former News of the World editor, Colin Myler is adamant that the paper had permission to print from Clarence Mitchell (the man paid to speak on behalf of the McCanns). During his appearance at the Leveson Inquiry, he stressed over and over that Mr Mitchell had given his utmost assurance that permission was granted.

...it was absolutely clear from the Friday to the Saturday that that assurance had been given to him (Ian Edmondson) and given again to me.

Because I was given an absolute categoric assurance that Clarence knew what we were doing. Ian Edmondson was probably at that stage almost in daily contact with Mr Mitchell. What conversations had taken place, I don't know. But I know that they had a very close relationship and a very close working professional relationship.

...Ian Edmondson had assured me on more than one occasion that Clarence was aware of what we were intending to do and had said, "Good". I think it was very clear from Mr Edmondson's point of view how he'd spelt out what he was doing,

Mr Edmondson, given the number of times I asked him for the assurance to make sure that there was absolute clarity and understanding, had no view that there was anything ambiguous in what we were going to do.

Daily contact... very close relationship?... Mr Myler and the McCanns also had a very close relationship. Until Mr McCann accused Mr Myler of being irate and berating him on the telephone, that is. Something which disappointed Mr Myler to hear and which he categorically denies.


A 4-page transcription of a phone call between Mr Edmondson and Mr Mitchell was submitted to the inquiry. Mr Mitchell last night issued a denial and described the phone call as brief...

At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that he had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.

Brief = 4 pages? Perhaps the caller forgot to hang up and all that was transcribed was background noise. Or the dialling tone. Ding dong. Interesting that Mr Mitchell contradicts himself by saying that he had no knowledge of the purchase of the diary, yet he was also unaware they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did... Were the News of the World planning to simply translate the original Portuguese press reports? If so, where did the other extracts come from?


The jungle drums are already beating on McCann supporter sites, thanks to Counsel to Inquiry, Robert Jay QC's persistent references yesterday to the diary's original source as being the Portuguese police.

Did Mr Edmondson tell you clearly that he had told Mr Mitchell that a copy of the diary had been obtained via the Portuguese police...

I think it was a woman journalist, but it's not going to matter. Made clear to you that the Portuguese police had translated the diary and therefore they remained in Portuguese.

Were you concerned by the fact that the diary had been obtained from the police in some way?

But were you aware of some of the background which comprised this: that the police had obtained the diary, having seized it from Dr Kate McCann, and then there was an order by the Portuguese judge for the diary to be returned, but I think a copy by then had been taken?

But it was clear to you that the ultimate source -- the proximate source was the journalist, but the ultimate source was the Portuguese police. That much was clear, wasn't it?

While the proximate source is brushed over, the ultimate source has been named over and over as fact. A very serious allegation to make and something which is against the law in Portugal. Was Mr Jay so sure of his facts today when he questioned Mr Sanderson's thoughts on whether the McCanns put the diary out in some way themselves? A very pertinent question which should be explored further.


The Portuguese speculation has in turn led to the usual suspect, Goncalo Amaral to be named, shamed and put in the line of fire by supporters of the McCanns. Smeared yet again, and tied up with a pretty ribbon ready for the libel trial in February? The big niggle with this theory is that Amaral was removed from the case on 3rd October 2007 - two weeks before the judge actually ordered the seizure of the diary on the 18th. Does that automatically put Rebello in the frame? Perhaps one for the muppets to ponder upon.


Another claim from Muppetland is if Clarence Mitchell really did know about the diaries being printed, then the News of the World could have cut out the middleman and headed straight to Kate McCann for an original copy of the diary. The only problem with this theory is the price - the diary most certainly wouldn't have been available at the Portuguese snippet price of £20,000. We have some seriously deluded muppets prancing about, tread carefully. Side splitting stuff yet again, they really should go back to knitting.


Mr Jay asked...

The newspaper was very supportive of the McCanns, and you wouldn't adopt the stance that other national newspapers had taken by printing malicious stories which had no foundation and emanated largely from the Portuguese press. So that was your position.

Isn't that what the News of the World did, took old news from the Portuguese press and regurgitated it to the gullible British public? The diary could be described as a British 'exclusive', but the NOTW were really just paying a cut price for old, already printed news.


A week after print and nipping at their ankles, there followed the swiftest of negotiations between the News of the World and Mr Thomson from Carter Ruck. An apology was given and the McCanns' palms were oiled, with a substantial amount of dosh being paid into their private company, the Madeleline Fund.


All done and dusted within the week. The way things are looking, the Team could well be commended for pulling a blinder on Murdoch... good play.





Posted by Me, Myself, Moi... at 14:37 0 comments

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/

It seems from Colin Mylers witness statement that Brian Kennedy telephoned Colin Myler to mediate between the Newspaper and The McCanns. Well worth reading this document.



Point No.21 of the witness statement here..

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Third-Witness-Statement-of-Colin-Myler.pdf

Not sure that anyone comes of out this exactly smelling of roses.

However you spin this, how did a copy of the diary get from the PJ into the hands of a Portuguese journalist in the first place? And was thence sold to the NOTW.

Was a payment made for the copy of the diary?

And on whose watch did this happen?

Xavier wrote:Not sure that anyone comes of out this exactly smelling of roses.

However you spin this, how did a copy of the diary get from the PJ into the hands of a Portuguese journalist in the first place? And was thence sold to the NOTW.

Was a payment made for the copy of the diary?

And on whose watch did this happen?

Yes, but there are two sides to it. You have chosen to look at the least important aspect at this stage.

Clearly we need to know (because it has not so far been established as fact, that the PJ (or specific elements within it) did leak it and when and for what reason.

However of greater importance surely is the issue of truthfulness regarding Mitchell, Edmondson, Myler & Crone.

Given what the McCann's said under oath about this episode and given the NOTW staff testimony at Leverson then there is a much more serious issue here of people lying under oath.

And what Mitchell has so far said in his denials makes no sense whatsoever.

He knew of a diary but didn't know it was Kate's??? If he knew there was a diary why wouldn't he have told K&G??

So right now, in the context of this enquiry that's the real and only story in town.

Agree??

There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

No I don't. If you are asking who do I believe is lying about this, then a combination of Mylers and Sandersons submissions do rather suggest that Edmonson was winging it.

I was going to continue but have just seen your post Candyfloss, and that is similar to the point I was going to make but you put it much better. It would have been cheaper and easier than the route NOTW used.

Xavier wrote:No I don't. If you are asking who do I believe is lying about this, then a combination of Mylers and Sandersons submissions do rather suggest that Edmonson was winging it.

I was going to continue but have just seen your post Candyfloss, and that is similar to the point I was going to make but you put it much better. It would have been cheaper and easier than the route NOTW used.

Really? But in his own words Clarence has admitted he was told the story related to A diary.

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days.

Whose diary did he think it was?
Do you think he didn't know Kate's diary had been leaked in Portugal, narrowing the options down a lot?
Do you think he wouldn't naturally have asked whose diary it was?

So if he did know whose diary it was, and given Kate's was the only one leaked in Portugal, what conclusions does that lead you to in relation to his truthfulness?

Oh what a tangled web.

According to his testimony and witness statement Daniel Sanderson had never spoken to Clarence Mitchell except for about 3 weeks ago to let him know he was going to apologise to the McCanns. Two plus years later???????? The NotW aplogised to the McCanns not long after the diaries were published and paid money into to the Fund - why then did he not apologise then?? Why now, and ring Mitchell just before giving testimony



Witness statement of Daniel Sanderson here - Point 6 being the bit I am referring to...........



http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Daniel-Sanderson.pdf